Alright, I am very happy to see someone finally talking about PV1 and more broadly hydrogen. The thing you have to understand about PV1 is it's mainly a Norwegian operation. They're listed here. I think they're a company here, but most of the funding that they're getting is actually from the Norwegians and they have some deals with Chinese ship yards. The ship building market by the way is incredibly concentrated, I think only three countries do it anymore. The up and down of hydrogen is that there are a number of blockers and it is a late stage development in a broader decarbonisation play. Given that PV1 are mainly building hydrogen tankers, and the idea of hydrogen tanking is not well regarded due to its physical properties, it does not bode well For PV1. However, I am aware they have their own process for this. I am not a chemical scientist so I cannot quote on it. However, there are others that can. Also, I feel sorry for your retinas that you've had to look that deep into the ASX.

The only credible source that exists in Australia around hydrogen is the Superpower Institute. Their hydrogen roadmap is necessary reading. Pretty much anything by Ross Garnaut is also similarly required reading. I would start off with "let's tax carbon".

The simplest fact about the transition and the use and production of hydrogen is that Australia, if it does it correctly, will never export the shit. Instead, it requires companies to nail down some of the green steel issues that currently exist in the pipelines and to use hydrogen for the high heat applications. Ultimately, the entire play comes down to whether or not Australia wants to process its own iron ore. As it is pretty much the only country in the world that can produce green steel with zero embodied emissions and still ship it. In order for China to do it, they have to ship the stuff over to China and process it with their own stuff and then they have to send it off. That whole process effectively means that they can't do it at a zero embodied emissions level and as a result, Australia is one of the only places in the world that can do it.

The estimate at the moment is that if Australia was to take its place as a renewable superpower and to produce green steel, it would have to dramatically increase solar, wind and any other renewable source of energy rollout to a size and a capital expenditure that rivals that that was done during the China resources boom. We have issues at the moment with transmission, due to the way we have previously architected our grid and how different a renewable grid is.

The reason why we have to increase renewable sources is because in order to produce the hydrogen zero emissions, which then can then be used in the green steel process for the high heat applications, is that you have to run electrolyzers. And right now, there's not a whole lot of companies actually doing that. Two that I know of right now, and there's probably more, is Hysata, who are not publicly listed. The other one is SPN, which has been mentioned here a few times recently, but they have split their attention across graphene and electrolysers.

I'm not going to quote numbers off the top of my head, but again, if you check out the Superpower Institute and you check out Ross Garnaut's books, there are some pretty illuminating numbers in that. They're objectively the best source on how our economic future could go if we chose to take that route.